The difference you see is in the content, not the display itself. I have a 46" HD LED TV, and SD programming still looks like crap. HD looks stunning. On a 7" display, even with a HD screen you won't appreciate any HD content. The benefits from HD don't really become apparent until the screen is at least 20".

There are quite a few articles about HD and screen size. Do a bit of googling and you should find them fairly easily. That will help you decide if you want to upgrade to a HD screen for your car.

I've read all these articles before, they're the same ones that say 1080p is of no benefit below 40", and I completely disagree. HD is always better and smoother. I've got a 720p 12" netbook and think it definitely has a noticeable difference. I don't really see the point in building with outdated technology like SD screens and resistive touch.

I'm completely able to see why you would not want "hd" in a 7 inch screen.
Forget that it's called HD and realize that it's simply a resolution. Pack more pixels into that screen and the items on the screen become even smaller and more difficult to read.

In the 12 inch netbook screen, 720p is definitely welcome. However if your test with what looks better is changing your netbook's resolution, then that is a failed test. If the native resolution of the screen is 720p and you put the screen in 800x600, it's going to look bad. The opposite is also true, however.

The terms SD and HD are BS. There is no more technology that goes into producing a 1080p picture than into a 800x600 picture. It's only a resolution. If a screen is small enough that you would never want 720p, then why would the manufacturer waste the money?

I've read all these articles before, they're the same ones that say 1080p is of no benefit below 40", and I completely disagree. HD is always better and smoother. I've got a 720p 12" netbook and think it definitely has a noticeable difference. I don't really see the point in building with outdated technology like SD screens and resistive touch.

Remember that HD is a broadcast standard, just like 480i/p. Computer monitor resolutions have surpassed 1920x1080, and it was done years before the HD moniker arrived on the scene. There were CRTs that had more than double 1920x1080 many, many years ago, and those screens still look better than the best consumer grade HDTV. The broadcast video (either OTA, cable, or via BD) is what has been created to take advantage of the higher resolution of HDTVs. My laptop has a 1920x1200 screen and it looks fantastic, but not because it's "HD" (which it isn't, because it's not 1920x1080) but because of the coating on the screen and the increased number of pixels.

I've read all these articles before, they're the same ones that say 1080p is of no benefit below 40", and I completely disagree. HD is always better and smoother. I've got a 720p 12" netbook and think it definitely has a noticeable difference. I don't really see the point in building with outdated technology like SD screens and resistive touch.

One thing you don't take into consideration is that a computer requires more graphics horsepower to provide higher resolutions, particularly with 24-30fps video playback.
That additional computing horsepower translates into power used, and in a vehicle installation, you have a limited power "box" to work with.

I am well aware that CPU & GPU technology has resulted in more efficient CPUs & GPUs that can render higher resolutions and use less power in doing so. Even with these newer, more efficient graphics systems, higher rez means more power draw.

Well my main point really was, how hard is it to take a laptop replacement OEM screen such as the Toshiba, and hook it up to regular PC connections such as DVI??

As for a HD capable PC, I'm tossing up either building an atom D525 system with ION2, which is 1080p capable, or an i5 sandy bridge mini ITX system, which would be more than capable and in even the Atom's case should be pretty snappy with an SSD.

I also have no interest in using the carpc software setups that emulate a touch screen headunit. I think touchscreen headunits are absolutely awful and about 10 years out of date in interface. I'd rather use Win7 MCE as it is EXTREMELY touch friendly and intuitive compared to todays touch screen headunits and will handle multimedia far better, I'll just miss out on navigation which doesn't bother me.

As you can see I'm really not after a traditional build at all, and with what I want the crisper higher res a screen I can source, the better. At the end of the day if I look at a regular 8.9" screen and don't think the resolution is good enough, I don't see why I wouldn't benefit from a 720p screen?

This argument really seems along the same lines as some people on here not seeing the point of capacitive screens, and others not seeing the benefits of multi touch.

Well my main point really was, how hard is it to take a laptop replacement OEM screen such as the Toshiba, and hook it up to regular PC connections such as DVI??

As for a HD capable PC, I'm tossing up either building an atom D525 system with ION2, which is 1080p capable, or an i5 sandy bridge mini ITX system, which would be more than capable and in even the Atom's case should be pretty snappy with an SSD.

I also have no interest in using the carpc software setups that emulate a touch screen headunit. I think touchscreen headunits are absolutely awful and about 10 years out of date in interface. I'd rather use Win7 MCE as it is EXTREMELY touch friendly and intuitive compared to todays touch screen headunits and will handle multimedia far better, I'll just miss out on navigation which doesn't bother me.

As you can see I'm really not after a traditional build at all, and with what I want the crisper higher res a screen I can source, the better. At the end of the day if I look at a regular 8.9" screen and don't think the resolution is good enough, I don't see why I wouldn't benefit from a 720p screen?

This argument really seems along the same lines as some people on here not seeing the point of capacitive screens, and others not seeing the benefits of multi touch.

I am on your side. I've been searching high and low for a 7" LCD that does more than 800x480. Is 1200x720 really so much to ask for?! I have both 480p and 720p/1080p content, and I can tell you the difference is noticeable, even on a 800x480 screen.

Originally Posted by PaulF

If a screen is small enough that you would never want 720p, then why would the manufacturer waste the money?

I don't know. Let's ask the millions of iPhone4 owners with a 960x640 resolution in a 4" LCD.

Yes, the pixels are much smaller making things difficult to see, if you are using the standard Windows/Linux/Mac desktop DPI. The thing is, iPhones and front ends for our CarPCs have scaled their UIs appropriately for the size of the screen, and there is no doubt that if I were able to purchase a 1200x720 capable LCD, I would be scaling the text accordingly from 72 or 96 dpi to 120 or even 150 dpi. Overall your desktop could look the same, but be damn sharper.

I'm running an intel E7500, Zotac mini-itx board with 4GB RAM and onboard GF9300. Even with basic DXVA support form the GF9300, I am able to decode 1080p video with max 40% CPU - I'm talking about a 16GB encode of Blackhawk Down. Shame that it has to downscale to 480p.

I am on your side. I've been searching high and low for a 7" LCD that does more than 800x480. Is 1200x720 really so much to ask for?! I have both 480p and 720p/1080p content, and I can tell you the difference is noticeable, even on a 800x480 screen.

Out of curiosity... explain to me how a 480p encode could look worse than a 720p encode on a screen that is 800x480? That simply doesn't make sense. Correct?

But I know exactly what you mean, the problem is actually in the compression of the video... not the screen itself. Record a video on a 1080p professional video camera uncompressed. Now, resize it to a perfect 480p and 720p, both uncompressed. Play it on a 480p screen and I promise both will look exactly the same. If you compress it optimizing for file size, however, there will definitely be a difference.

Originally Posted by ninja6o4

I don't know. Let's ask the millions of iPhone4 owners with a 960x640 resolution in a 4" LCD.

Yes, the pixels are much smaller making things difficult to see, if you are using the standard Windows/Linux/Mac desktop DPI. The thing is, iPhones and front ends for our CarPCs have scaled their UIs appropriately for the size of the screen, and there is no doubt that if I were able to purchase a 1200x720 capable LCD, I would be scaling the text accordingly from 72 or 96 dpi to 120 or even 150 dpi. Overall your desktop could look the same, but be damn sharper.

Of course there would be some gain from higher pixel density but I bet the gain from removing the resistive touch screen overlay would be a greater gain than an increase in pixel density.